US v. Samuel Phillips, No. 15-6956 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6956 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL CLIVE PHILLIPS, a/k/a Jungle, a/k/a Culture, a/k/a David, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00131-HCM-5) Submitted: October 8, 2015 Decided: November 6, 2015 Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Clive Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel Clive Phillips appeals the district court’s order denying his sentence 18 U.S.C. reduction Guidelines. § 3582(c)(2) under (2012) Amendment 782 motion to the seeking a Sentencing Because we conclude that the district court erred in finding that Phillips’s Guidelines range was unchanged by the Amendment, we vacate and remand to the district court for further proceedings. “We review a district court’s decision under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion, and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). accord substantial deference to a interpretation of its own judgment.” United States v. “We are obliged to district Id. at 305. court’s A district court abuses its discretion, however, if it fails or refuses to exercise discretion, factual premises. or if it relies on erroneous legal or James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered . . . if such statements a reduction issued § 3582(c)(2); see by is the also consistent Sentencing U.S. with Commission.” Sentencing 2 applicable 18 Guidelines policy U.S.C. Manual § 1B1.10, p.s. (2014). “Eligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment . . . that lowers the applicable [G]uideline range.” n.1(A). “In determining reduction in the whether, defendant’s USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. and term to of what extent, imprisonment a under [§ 3582(c)(2)] and this policy statement is warranted, the court shall determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in subsection (d) had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s. (2014). At sentencing, Phillips was attributed with 24.06 kilograms of cocaine base. Under Amendment 782, Phillips’s base offense level is 36, rather than the base offense level of 42 with which he was attributed at sentencing. USSG § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2014) (providing for offense level 36 for offense involving at least 8.4 kilograms, but less than 25.2 kilograms of cocaine base). After adding the five levels to his offense level that were added to his original offense level, and in conjunction with his category I criminal history, Phillips’s Guidelines range is now 324-405 months. Accordingly, USSG Phillips’s Ch. 5, Guidelines reduced under Amendment 782. 3 pt. A range (sentencing of life table). has been We thus determining conclude that Guidelines range. that the Amendment 782 district did not court lower erred in Phillips’s Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand so that the court may consider whether to grant any sentence dispense reduction with contentions are oral for which argument adequately Phillips because presented in is the the eligible. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
